The protections conferred on CIRP participants through Section 21(2) show that Part III’s silence creates an arbitrary distinction between two classes of insolvent that Article 14 cannot sustain.

This piece aims to examine the practical consequences of leaving the concept of “treatment” undefined and proposes reforms that may help give substantive effect to the protection contemplated under Regulation 38A.

Authors examine how the arbitration law creates an appearance of certainty. Employing the newly enacted Chinese framework as a genesis, the post compares the approaches in three different jurisdictions and puts forward suggestions to address the ambiguities and structural gaps in Indian arbitration law which handle the jurisdictional objections in practice.